This piece dealt with the public health issue of food accessibility. The use of research was highly prevalent in the development of the filmmakers arguments. They used interviews, first-hand filming of families, stats, news clips, and more. They covered their research in a variety of communities and backgrounds to show the widespread nature of the problem. It also worked similarly to the New York Times commentary we looked at in class. The use of many experts points of view allowed the creation of a single voice preaching an argument. One of the main arguments made through these voices is that the ‘cost of hunger’ is much higher than what the government spends on food stamps. There are so many more ‘overhead’ costs to hunger, including healthcare costs for those who are malnourished from essential nutrients.
The filmmakers used these people and their family as a ‘research source’, one example being the before and after approach with Barbie. The audience expected that Barbie’s struggles would have gone away after receiving a full time salary. Much to the surprise of the viewers, her struggles continued because she no longer qualified for food stamps. This was a highly effective strategy by the filmmaker to show the inefficiencies in the government support of hunger.
This is one specific example but it is the one that stood out to me as most effective. This was a bold strategy to shape their argument even further. Overall, I believe the film did a nice job throughout to clearly shape its’ argument and use overwhelming research to grab the attention of the audience.